pike to mr. crone, 6th of june, time 17:18 in the afternoon, page 53179, there are three bullet points, and i'm only concerned about the third. he wallets to demonstrate -- he wants to demonstrate what happened to him is/was rife throughout the organization. he wants to correct the paper-telling parliamentary inquiries that this was not happening when it was -- >> are you with me, mr.-- >> yes, i'm following along on the page. >> the other point that was being made is mr. taylor is, in effect, coming close to blackmailing us, i paraphrase, but that's a separate issue. now, it is true that the cone e-mail of the 7th of june doesn't address the rife issue, but mr. myler's e-mail to you timed at 14:31 and 41 seconds on saturday, the 7th of june, does draw your attention specifically to julian pike's e-mail, dun it? >> regarding taylor's vin vindictiveness as he describes it? >> yes. >> yes. >> but he's asking you to read it, isn't he? >> i think he's asking me to read the e-mail chain, presumably, in a vi

mr. crone reporting back to mr. pike. mr. pike is running the litigation. mr. crone is reporting back on the meeting you had. do you follow me, mr. murdoch? >> yes. >> it says meeting with j. m. and c. m. it says that he wanted to think through the options. that suggests that you haven't come to any subtle decision to conceive the litigation when the meeting ended. is that correct? >> i looked at this and was trying to think what that could mean. and i do think that there was something that had to wait before it could wait. something about going back to mr. mulcaire's attorney to discuss because he was eight cole defendant -- codefendant. it may have just been let's just think about it for a day. or see if he could come back and it could be done at that level. i'm conjecturing. >> the natural meaning of this is that he wanted to ponder what you've been told. would you not agree? >> yes, sit on it for a bit and think about it. there was a reason for the gap there, which was their -- they had to go have a discussion with mr. mulcaire's attorneys. look at the next

this is really -- mr. crone reporting back to mr. pike. mr. pike is running this litigation. mr. crone is reporting back on the meeting you had. do you follow me, mr. murdoch? >> yeah. >> it says, meeting with jay. jay said he wanted to think through the options. that's the gist. that you hadn't come to any settled decision to confuse litigation when the meeting ended, is that correct? >> i looked at this and was trying to think what that could mean and i do -- and i do think there was something that had to wait before it could -- there was something about going back to mr. the attorneys to discuss -- because he was a co-defendant, to make the legal ends and outs of it, i don't know at the time. it may have been, well, let's think about it for a day, or see if he come back and -- >> well, the meaning of this was that you wanted to pawn the -- what you have been told, would you not agree? >> yes. i do -- sit on it for a day and think about it. there was a reason for the gap there which was there -- they had to go and have the discussion with the attorneys, i believe. >> have a look

he was pretty inexperienced at the time, and he'd just been there a few months, and mr. crone and mr. myler came to him and put it to him in a relatively short conversation. >> yes. can i just understand that, mr. murdoch? >> i think mr. murdoch meant take the higher one. >> well, there are two boxes, the one, the lower box and the infinitely higher one, is it your evidence that your son was told to pick the lower box or the infinitely higher one? >> what order they were, pick the one that didn't involve the risk of an appeal and triple damages, god knows what else. >> weren't you told that the much higher box was the one which said if we don't settle this case, there's the risk that there'll be many more cases? >> no, i was never told that. >> you sure? >> yes. i mean, anyone who puts faith in confidentiality agreements with contingency lawyers is too naive to be true. >> but you knew there was a confidentiality agreement associated with the taylor settlement, didn't you? >> i was told that, yes. >> is so you might have assumed that that wasn't worth the paper it was written

. >> the question was it is really only the good work of mr. crone. >> i think we had an effective management board where senior executives would meet, including the chief operating officer, the chief financial officer, including the editors from time to time. there was ample opportunity to discuss these issues and surface them. there were regular systems in place. i think i would have had a reasonable expectation that having the managers close this audit date -- associated with the newsrooms was a protection. in addition, i also met with our internal audit department who audited and the business with respect to certain issues. i encouraged them to be transparent to take the resources they required. >> in your position, did you make of obvious connection between risk and reputation of damage to the company? >> it is something that is important to a business with respect to a company's license with its customers, the communities it operates in, and legal risk plays into that. >> we are bringing you coverage of james murdock giving evidence to the inqu

place in the "news of the world" at the time, which we are focusing, was the human personality of mr. crone, the legal manager, and the editor. there was nothing else, was there, mr. murdoch? >> no. well, there were corporate lawyers. >> the whole system -- >> with major responsibilities in this area. they were at the cutting edge, those to. >> the whole system -- [inaudible] by the personalities, benefits and qualities, myler and crone, and before mr. crone called the editors who were responsible for our we agree? >> yes, i think editors are all responsible for their papers. i certainly hope that. >> if you say that the cost of instore and proper systems i would suggest to you of internal governance was not that great, could it not be said that even greater force in the proposition that you showed swashbuckling or cavalier attitude to these matters? >> no, i don't think it can be said. i think we made mistakes but i think we should not have allowed it, not have had one legal officer at the "news of the world" for 20 years. i think those sort of things should be changed every five, or the w

pike is running the litigation, mr. crone is reporting back on the meeting you had. do you follow me, mr. murdoch? >> yep. .. >> the answer came add 01659, page 80, which did go to you. mission accomplished. this is to mr. michel. former sky -- [inaudible] were contacted mr. cable, rather than getting in political games, in times of austerity and very difficult economic environment for those areas. he also emphasized the opportunity to mr. cable to show -- partners working for long-term and will draw from the coalition government. then we can see the second political point. very keen to also put these issues across to cable. recall with you tomorrow, wednesday, the scottish press on the economic importance of news corp. for scotland. i think you did have a conversation with them, did you, mr. murdoch? >> i think i did, but mr. jay, i think you characterized, page 18, the note that starts mission accomplished on how the answer to to talk to with respect to mr. cable. and i don't think the two are related. for clarity, i think 16 is vincent main adviser suggesting that